Download - Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
1/46
Rosencor Devt and Rene Joaquin v. Paterno Inquing,Irene Guillermo, Frederico Bantugan, Fernando Magbanua,and Lia !iangco
Facts" Paterno Inquing, Irene Guillermo, Frederico
Bantugan, Fernando Magbanua, and Liza Tiangco,
herein respondents, averred that they are the lessees,
since !", o# a t$o%story residential apartment
located at Tomas Morato &ve', (uezon )ity o$ned by
the spouses Faustino and )resencia Tiangco'
The lease $as not covered by a contract and the
lessees $ere assured by the *pouses Tiangco that
they had the pre%emptive right to purchase the
property i# ever there $as a decision to sell it'
+pon the death o# the *pouses Tiangco in !", the
management o# the property $as ad-ucated to their
heirs $ho $ere represented by .u#rocina de Leon'
The lessess $ere allegedly promised the same pre%
emptive rights to purchase by the heirs o# the spouses
Tiangco'
In /une !!0, the lessees received a letter #rom a
certain &tty' .rlinda &guila demanding that they
vacate the premises so that demolition to the buildingcould be underta1en' The lessees re#used to vacate'
Therea#ter, they received a letter #rom .u#rocina 2e
Leon o##ering to sell them the property #or
3,000,000'00 pesos' The lessees countered the o##er
by o##ering to buy the property #or ,000,000 pesos'
4o$ever, no ans$er $as given by 2e Leon to accept
the o##er'
4o$ever, in 5ovember !!0, 6ene /oaquin, came to
the leased premises introducing himsel# as the ne$
o$ner'
In /anuary !!, the lessees again received another
letter #rom &tty' &guila demanding that they vacate
the premises' &nd therea#ter, they received a letter#rom 2e Leon advising them that the heirs had
already sold the property to 6osencor'
The lessees, later on, received a copy o# the 2eed o#
*ale bet$een 2e Leon and 6osencor' They
discovered that the sale too1 place on *eptember
!!0 $hile the o##er by 2e Leon happened a month
later in 7ctober !!0'
The lessees o##ered to reimburse 2e Leon the selling
price but they $ere re#used' They then #iled an action,
among others, #or the rescission o# the 2eed o#
&bsolute *ale bet$een 2e Leon and 6osencor'
The 6T) dismissed the complaint holding that the
right o# #irst re#usal o# the lessees $as merely and oralone and $as thus unen#orceable by virtue o# the
statute o# #rauds'
The )& reversed the decision o# the 6T) and
ordered, among others, the rescission o# the 2eed o#
&bsolute *ale and #or the heirs to a##ord the lessees
to e8ercise their rights o# #irst re#usal'
4ence, the present petition $herein 6osencor and
6ene /oaquin raise the #ollo$ing errors9
I' T4. )& G6&:.L; .66.2
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
2/46
In the second case, Equatorial Realty and Devt, Inc.
vs Mayfair !eater, Inc, the court ordered the
rescission o# a contract entered into in violation o# a
right o# #irst re#usal' May#air could only e8ercise the
right i# the #raudulent sale is #irst set aside or
rescinded'
Third, in "aranaque #ings Enter$rises, Inc. vs C%, the
)ourt held that the allegations in a complaint sho$ing
violation o# a contractual right o# #irst option to buy
properties sub-ect to lease constitute a valid cause o#
action by summarizing the rulings in the t$o
previously cited cases'
Lastly, in the case o# &iton'ua vs &(R Cor$oration, the
court held that the sale made therein in violation o# a
right o# #irst re#usal embodied in a mortgage contract
$as rescissible'
Thus, as enunciated in the cited cases, a contract o#
sale entered into in violation o# a right o# #irst re#usal o#
another person is rescissible'
4o$ever, that doctrine cannot be applied to the case
at bar' +nder &rticle C o# the )ivil )ode,
paragraph , a contract validly agreed upon may be
rescinded i# it is Dunderta#en in $raud o$ creditors%&en t&e latter cannot in an' manner collect t&eclaim due t&em.(
Moreover, under &rticle C, rescission shall not
ta1e place D%&en t&e t&ings %&ic& are t&e ob)ect o$t&e contract are legall' in t&e *ossession o$ t&ird*ersons %&o did not act in bad $ait&.E
Good #aith is al$ays presumed unless contrary to the
evidence is adduced' In the case at bar, there clear
and convincing evidence should have been sho$n to
prove that petitioners $ere a$are o# the right o# #irst
re#usal accorded to the respondents'
6espondents point to the letter by &tty' &guila as
proo#' 4o$ever, no mention about the rights o# #irst
re#usal $as made in said letter'
5either $as there any sho$ing that respondents
noti#ied 6osencor o# &tty' &guila o# their right o# #irst
re#usal a#ter they received the said letter'
6espondents also point to the letter by 2e Leon
$here she recognized the right o# #irst re#usal o# the
respondents' 4o$ever, 2e Leon $as $riting on her
behal# and not on behal# o# petitioners and, as such, it
only sho$s that 2e Leon $as a$are o# the e8istence
o# the rights' It does not sho$ that petitioners $ere
a$are o# such rights'
)learly, 2e Leon is the only party in bad #aith in this
case'
)onsidering the there $as no sho$ing o# bad #aith on
the part o# the petitioners, the )& erred in ordering #or
the rescission o# the 2eed o# &bsolute *ale bet$een
6osencor and 2e Leon'
Thus, the remedy #or the respondent is not rescission
but an action #or damages against 2e Leon and the
heirs o# the *pouses Tiangco #or the un-usti#ied
disregard o# their right o# #irst re#usal'
+- /G 0-/G v. 01 and PIL1M I/23R1/0- 0.? *)6& "0@
Facts"
Petitioner he 4ong )heng is the o$ner o# Butuan
*hipping Lines' 7n or about A 7ctober !C, the Philippine
&gricultural Trading )orporation shipped on board the vesse
M: P6I5). .6I) ?o$ned by petitioner@ , A00 bags o# copra
#or delivery to 2ipolog )ity' The said shipment $as covered by
a marine insurance policy issued by &merican 4ome Insurance
)ompany ?respondent Philam>s assured@' M: P6I5). .6I)ho$ever, san1 resulting in the total loss o# the shipment
Because o# this, the insurer, &merican 4ome, paid the amoun
o# PA, 000' 00 ?the value o# the copra@ to the consignee'
&merican 4ome then instituted a civil case based on
breach o# contract o# carriage #or the recovery o# the money
paid'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
3/46
ot!er legal means to o2tain re$aration for
t!e same.
It is thus apparent that an action to rescind or an
accion $aulianamust be o# last resort, availed o# only a#ter all
other legal remedies have been e8hausted and have been
proven #utile' For an accion $aulianato accrue, the #ollo$ing
requisites must concur9
?@ That the plainti## as1ing #or rescission has a credit
prior to the alienation, although demandable laterH?3@ That the debtor has made a subsequent contract
conveying a patrimonial bene#it to a third personH
?@ That the creditor has no other legal remedy to satis#y
his claim, but $ould bene#it by rescission o# the
conveyance to the third personH
?A@ That the act being impugned is #raudulentH
?@ That the third person $ho received the property
conveyed, i# by onerous title, has been an accomplice
in the #raud'
&s enunciated by the )&, #or as long as the creditor
still has a remedy at la$ #or the en#orcement o# his claim
against the debtor, he $ill not have any cause o# action #orrescission o# contracts' Indeed, an accion $auliana
presupposes a -udgment and the issuance by the trial court o#
a $rit o# e8ecution and the #ailure o# the sheri## to en#orce and
satis#y such' It presupposes that the creditor has e8hausted
the property o# the debtor' The date o# decision o# the trial court
against the debtor is immaterial' s -udgment' *ince respondent Philam #iled its complaint
#or accion $aulianaon 3 February !!", barely a month #rom
its discovery that petitioner he 4ong )heng had no other
property le#t, its action #or rescission clearly had not yet
prescribed'
4ence, the petition must be 2.5I.2 #or lac1 o# merit'
G.R. /o. 456789 June 64, 6::;3/I/ B1/+ F !- PILIPPI/-2, Petitioner,vs'
2P2. 1LFR-D /G 1/D 2321/1 /G and J10+2/L--, 6espondents'
I**+.9
Is the suit commenced by the petitioner against the
respondents #or annulment or rescission o# sale in #raud o
creditors'
F&)T*9
' 6espondents, the spouses &l#redo 7ng and *usana
7ng, o$n the ma-ority capital stoc1 o# Bali$ag
Mahogany )orporation ?BM)@'
2. 7n 7ctober 0, !!0, the spouses e8ecuted a
)ontinuing *urety &greement in #avor o# +nion Ban1
to secure a PA0,000,000'00%credit line #acility made
available to BM)'
' & year a#ter the e8ecution o# the surety agreement,the spouses 7ng, #orP3,00,000'00, sold their house
and lot located in Greenhills, *an /uan, Metro Manila,
to their co%respondent, /ac1son Lee ?Lee, #or short@'
A' 7n 5ovember 33, !!, BM) #iled a Petition #or
6ehabilitation and #or 2eclaration o# *uspension o#
Payments $ith the *ecurities and .8change
)ommission ?*.)@' To protect its interest, +nion
Ban1 #iled $ith the 6T) o# Pasig )ity an action #or
rescission o# the sale bet$een the spouses 7ng and
/ac1son Lee #or purportedly being in #raud o#
creditors'
5. The #raudulent design, according to +nion Ban1, is
evidenced by the #ollo$ing circumstances9 ?@insu##iciency o# consideration, the purchase price
o# P3,00,000'00 being belo$ the #air mar1et value
o# the sub-ect property at that timeH ?3@ lac1 o#
#inancial capacity on the part o# Lee to buy the
property at that time since his gross income #or the
year !!0, per the credit investigation conducted by
the ban1, amounted to only PA,"'"H and ?@ Lee
did not assert absolute o$nership over the property
as he allo$ed the spouses 7ng to retain possession
thereo# under a purported )ontract o# Lease dated
7ctober 3!, !!'
' 6T) rendered decision, applying &rticle C o# the
)ivil )ode and noting that the evidence on record
JpresentKs circumstances distinctly characterized by
badges o# #raud,J rendered -udgment #or +nion Ban1,
the 2eed o# *ale e8ecuted by the spouses 7ng in
#avor o# Lee being declared null and void'
"' 6espondents #iled an appeal to )& ' The )& reversed
and set aside the trial courts ruling, observing that the
contract o# sale e8ecuted by the spouses 7ng and
Lee, being complete and regular on its #ace, is clothed
$ith the prima #acie presumption o# regularity and
legality'
4.L29
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
4/46
In this case , the determinative issue tendered in this case
resolves itsel# into the question o# $hether or not the 7ng%Lee
contract o# sale parta1es o# a conveyance to de#raud +nion
Ban1'
.ssentially, petitioner anchors its case on &rticle C o# the
)ivil )ode $hich lists as among the rescissible contracts
JKThose underta1en in #raud o# creditors $hen the latter cannot
in any other manner collect the claim due them'J
1. In a bid to attach a badge o# #raud on the transaction,
petitioner raises the issue o# inadequate
consideration, alleging payment o#
only P3,00,000'00 #or a property having a #air
mar1et value o# PA,00,000'00'
The *upreme )ourt held9 The e8istence o# #raud or
the intent to de#raud creditors cannot plausibly be
presumed #rom the #act that the price paid #or a piece
o# real estate is perceived to be slightly lo$er, i# that
really be the case, than its mar1et value' That the
spouses 7ng acquiesced to the price
o#P3,00,000'00, $hich may be lo$er than the
mar1et value o# the house and lot at the time o#
alienation, is certainly not an unusual businessphenomenon'
2. Petitioner>s assertion regarding respondent Lee>s lac1
o# #inancial capacity to acquire the property in
question since his income in !!0 $as
only PA,"'" is clearly untenable'
The *upreme )ourt held9 &ssuming #or argument that
petitioner got its #igure right, it is clearly incorrect to
measure one>s purchasing capacity $ith one>s income
at a given period' But the more important
consideration in this regard is the uncontroverted #act
that respondent Lee paid the purchase price o# saidproperty' ot&er c&ildren o$ -milio and Felisa.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_152347_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_152347_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_152347_2006.html#fnt20 -
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
5/46
DBP received a co*' o$ t&e decision on JAN 199,but t&e DBP $ailed to a**ealsupposedly because o#e8cusable negligence and the $ithdra$al o# its
counsel o# record'
o ,4??7, t&e date o$ suc& $inalit'.
!&e DBP claims t&at it s&ould be $our 'ears as*rovided under 1rticle 47>? o$ t&e 0ivil0ode.&rticle C! provides that Dthe action to claim
rescission must be commenced $ithin #our years'E !&e s economic interests as described in
&rticles C0 and C'
AResolution,(the action re#erred to in &rticle !, isbased on the de#endant>s breach o# #aith, a violation
o# the reciprocity bet$een the parties' &s an action
based on the binding #orce o# a $ritten contract,
there#ore, rescission ?resolution@ under &rticle !
prescribes in 0 years under &rticle AA'
&ctually, the cause o# action o# the (uirong heirs
stems #rom their having been ousted by #inal
-udgment #rom the o$nership o# the lot that the 2BP
sold to *o#ia (uirong, in violation o# the $arranty
against eviction that comes $ith every sale o#
property or thing' &rticle AC o# the )ivil )ode
provides9
1rticle 458>. .viction shall ta1e place $henever by a#inal -udgment based on a right prior to the sale or an
act imputable to the vendor, the vendee is deprived o#
the $hole or o# a part o# thing purchased'
o =it& t&e loss o$ >: o$ t&e sub)ect lot tot&e Dalo*es b' reason o$ t&e )udgment o$t&e R!0 in 0ivil 0ase D@945?, t&e
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
6/46
They alleged therein that *pouses Baylon, during their
li#etime, o$ned A parcels o# land all situated in 5egros
7riental'
ter the death o# *pouses Baylon, they claimed that 6ita
too1 possession o# the said parcels o# land and
appropriated #or hersel# the income #rom the same'
+sing the income produced by the said parcels o# land,
6ita allegedly purchased t$o parcels o# land, Lot 5o'
A"0! and hal# o# Lot 5o' A"0, situated in )anda%uay,
2umaguete )ity'
The petitioners averred that 6ita re#used to e##ect a
partition o# the said parcels o# land'
In their &ns$er, Florante, 6ita and Pan#ila asserted that
they and the petitioners co%o$ned 33 out o# the A parcels
o# land mentioned in the latter>s complaint, $hereas 6ita
actually o$ned 0 parcels o# land out o# the A parcels
$hich the petitioners sought to partition'
2uring the pendency o# the case, 6ita, through a 2eed o#
2onation dated /uly , !!", conveyed Lot 5o' A"0! and
hal# o# Lot 5o' A"0 to Florante'
6ita died intestate and $ithout any issue'
Therea#ter, learning o# the said donation inter vivos in
#avor o# Florante, the petitioners #iled a *upplementalPleading, praying that the said donation in #avor o# the
respondent be rescinded in accordance $ith &rticle
C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode'
Florante and Pan#ila opposed the rescission o# the said
donation, asserting that &rticle C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode
applies only $hen there is already a prior -udicial decree
on $ho bet$een the contending parties actually o$ned the
properties under litigation'
6T) ruled donation inter vivose8ecuted by 6ita Baylon in
#avor o# Florante Baylon is rescissible #or the reason that it
re#ers to the parcels o# land in litigation $ithout the
1no$ledge and approval o# the plainti##s or o# this )ourt'
)& held that be#ore the petitioners may #ile an action #or
rescission, they must #irst obtain a #avorable -udicial ruling
that Lot 5o' A"0! and hal# o# Lot 5o' A"0 actually
belonged to the estate o# *pouses Baylon and not to 6ita'
I223-" right to institute the action #or rescission
pursuant to &rticle C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode is no
preconditioned upon the 6T)>s determination as to the
o$nership o# the said parcels o# land'
It bears stressing that the right to as1 #or the rescission o
a contract under &rticle C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode is no
contingent upon the #inal determination o# the o$nership o
the thing sub-ect o# litigation'
The petition is partly granted' The decision o# the )& is
modi#ied' The case remanded to the trial court #or the
determination o# the o$nership o# Lot 5o' A"0! and hal# o
Lot 5o' A"0'
!IB3R0I 21M/!-, *etitioner, vs. 03R! F 1PP-1L2N Moe Toma$is
Facts9
From the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties
the #ollo$ing are not disputed or deemed admitted9 that Lo
3, containing an area o# 3," square meters,&gusan ?no$
del 5orte@ is covered by 7)T 5o' 67%3C issued in !3" in
the name o# &polonia &bao and Irenea Tolero in equa
undivided sharesH that 7)T 5o' 67%3C $as administratively
reconstituted on &ugust C, !" and the assigned number o
the reconstituted title is 7)T 5o' 67%3CH that on &ugust C
!", based on an a##idavit o# .8tra%-udicial *ettlement and
)on#irmation o# *ale 7)T 5o' 67%3C ?@ $as cancelled
and lieu thereo# T)T 5o' 6T%A" $as issued in the name o#
Irenea Tolero, O share and 5icolas /adol, O shareH that on
February , !!, based on subdivision plan, subdividing Lo
3 into Lot 3%& and Lot 3%B, the 6egister o# 2eeds o#
&gusan ?no$ del 5orte@ cancelled T)T 5o' 6T%A" and issuedin its place T)T 5o' 6T% in the name o# Tiburcio *amonte
#or Lot 3%& and T)T 5o'6T%A'Irenea Tolero and 5icolas
/adol #or Lot 3%BH that on February , !! based on a
subdivision plan subdividing Lot 3%B to 3%B% and 3%B%
3, T)T 5o' 6T%A $as cancelled and in its place T)T 5o
6T% $as issued in the name o# /acob B' Tagorda #or Lo
3%B% and T)T 5o' in the name o# Irenea Tolero and
5icolas /adol #or Lot 3%B%3H
Plainti##s in their evidence claim o$nership over the entire lot
Lot 3, as one%hal# ?3@ o# the area o# 3'" square meters
$as registered in the name o# their mother Irenea Tolero the
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
7/46
other hal# $as registered in the name o# their grandmother,
&polonia &bao' ter &polonia &bao died during the
/apanese occupation and Irenea Tolero died in !A, they
inherited and became o$ners o# Lot 3' Plainti##s questioned
the series o# cancellation o# the certi#icate o# title starting #rom
7)T 5o' 67%3C ?@ and the 2eed o# .8tra%-udicial
*ettlement and )on#irmation o# *ale e8ecuted by Ignacio
&tupan on &ugust ", !" ad-udicating one%hal# ?3@ o# the
area o# Lot 3' Plainti##s maintain that Ignacio &tupan is not a
son o# &polonia &bao but he only gre$ up $hile living $ith
&polonia &bao' That the plainti##s or their predecessors%in%interest have not signed any document agreeing as to the
manner ho$ Lot 3 $as to be divided, nor have they
consented to the partition o# the same'
&ccordingly, the court a quo -ointly tried the t$o cases' ter
due trial, the trial court rendered separate decisions, both in
#avor o# the plainti##s therein' The )& a##irmed'
I**+.9 s one%hal# lot in
#avor o# 5icolas /adol'
The trial court #ound &tupan>s a##idavit, dated &ugust ", !",
to be tainted $ith #raud because he #alsely claimed therein that
he $as the sole heir o# &bao $hen in #act, he merely lived and
gre$ up $ith her' /adol and his $i#e, Beatriz, 1ne$ about this
#act' 2espite this 1no$ledge, ho$ever, the /adol spouses still
presented the a##idavit o# &tupan be#ore the 6egister o# 2eeds
o# the Province o# &gusan $hen they caused the cancellation
o# 7)T 5o' 60%3C?@ and issuance o# T)T 5o'6T%A" in
their names covering that portion o$ned by &bao'
The trial court concluded that the incorporation o# the
statement in &tupan>s a##idavit con#irming the alleged e8ecution
o# the a#oresaid deeds o# sale $as intended solely to #acilitate
the issuance o# the certi#icate o# title in #avor o# the /adol
spouses' It $as noted that the documents evidencing the
alleged transactions $ere not presented in the 6egister o#
2eeds' It $as #urther pointed out that the /adol spouses only
sought the registration o# these transactions in !", eighteen
?C@ years a#ter they supposedly too1 place or t$elve ?3@years a#ter &bao died'
5onetheless, petitioner contends that respondents> action in
the court a quo had already prescribed' Generally, an action
#or reconveyance o# real property based on #raud may be
barred by the statute o# limitations $hich requires that the
action must be commenced $ithin #our ?A@ years #rom the
discovery o# #raud, and in case o# registered land, such
discovery is deemed to have ta1en place #rom the date o# the
registration o# title'
Petitioner, as successor%in%interest o# the /adol spouses, no$
argues that the respondents> action #or reconveyance, #iled
only in !", had long prescribed considering that the /ado
spouses caused the registration o# a portion o# the sub-ect lo
in their names $ay bac1 in &ugust C, !"' It is petitioner>s
contention that since eighteen years had already lapsed #rom
the issuance o# T)T 5o' 6T%A" until the time $hen
respondents #iled the action in the court a quo in !", the
same $as time%barred'
Petitioner>s de#ense o# prescription is untenable' The generarule that the discovery o# #raud is deemed to have ta1en place
upon the registration o# real property because it is Dconsidered
a constructive notice to all personsEK0 does not apply in this
case'
The )ourt>s resolution o# $hether prescription had set in
therein is quite apropos to the instant case9
It is true that registration under the Torrens system is
constructive notice o# title, but it has li1e$ise been our holding
that the Torrens title does not #urnish a shield #or #raud' It is
there#ore no argument to say that the act o# registration is
equivalent to notice o# repudiation, assuming there $as onenot$ithstanding the long%standing rule that registration
operates as a universal notice o# title'
For the same reason, $e cannot dismiss private respondents
claims commenced in !"A over the estate registered in !
s act o# de#raudation' &ccording to
the respondent )ourt o# &ppeals, they Jcame to 1no$ Ko# it
apparently only during the progress o# the litigation'J 4ence
prescription is not a bar'
In this case, the )& rec1oned the prescriptive period #rom the
time respondents had actually discovered the #raudulent act o
&tupan $hich $as, as borne out by the records, only during the
trial o# )ivil )ase 5o' "3' )iting &dille, the )& right#ully
ruled that respondents> action #or reconveyance had not yeprescribed'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
8/46
!-R-21 .F. 1RR1G1, 01RL2 . FR!I0, J2- L3I2 . R2, P13LI!1 . RDRIG3-, and
L3RD-2 . L/, res*ondents. H
Facts9
The original o$ner o# the DLahug PropertyE?sub-ect
property in this case@ by the name )armen 7zamiz
.8ecuted a D5otarized 2eed o# &bsolute *aleE dated
&pril 3C, !C! in #avor o# herein petitioners in
consideration o# a sum o# P,0A0,000'
/anuary , !! herein respondents instituted a
petition #or guardianship $ith the 6T) alleging that
)armen 7zamiz, then C years old, a#ter an illness
sometime in !C" has become disoriented and could
no longer ta1e care o# hersel# nor manage her
properties'
Mario Mendezona and Luis Mendezona, t$o o# herein
petitioner and $ho are nephe$s o# )armen 7zamiz
and a certain Pilar Mendezona #iled an opposition to
the above said guardianship petition' In the course o#
the proceeding both parties agreed that )armen
7zamiz needed a guardian over her person and
properties'
7ne o# herein respondent Paz 7' Montalvan $asdesignated as guardian over the person o#
)armen 7zamiz $hile petitioner Mario /' Mendezona,
respondents 6oberto /' Montalvan and /ulio
4' 7zamiz $ere designated as -oint guardians over
the properties o# the said $ard' &nd as guardians
respondents 6oberto and /ulio #iled $ith the
guardianship court their Dinventories and &ccountsE,
listing )armen 7zamiz>s assets including the property
1no$n as the DLahug propertyE' *aid respondents
also caused the inscription on the titles o# petitioners
a notice o# lis pendens ?suit pending@ prompting
herein petitioners to #ile a suit #or quieting o# title ?&
proceeding to establish an individuals right to
o$nership o# real property against one or more
adverse claimants'@
respondents opposed the petitioners> claim o#
o$nership o# the Lahug property and alleged among
others, that at the time o# the sale on &pril 3C,
!C! )armen 7zamiz $as already ailing and not in
#ull possession o# her mental #aculties'
2uring the case the petitioners presented the
5otarized 2eed o# &bsolute *ale and $itnesses $ho
testi#ied #or the regularity o# the said document, on the
other hand the respondents presented di##erent
testimonials and the deposition o# 2r' Faith Go,
physician o# )armen 7zamiz' 6T) rendered a decision in #avor o# the petitioners
upholding the validity o# the contract and #urther
stating said contract $as voluntarily and deliberately
entered into $hile )armen 7zamis $as o# sound
mind, #or su##icient and good consideration, and
$ithout #raud, #orce, undue in#luence or intimidation
having been e8ercised upon her, and consequently,
the )ourt orders the de#endants herein to
ac1no$ledge and recognize the plainti##s> title to
the a#orecited property'
+pon appeal the )& reversed the #actual #inding o
the 6T)' &nd #urther denied the petitioners motion #o
reconsideration and motion #or a ne$ trial'
Issue9
s mental #aculties $ere indeed
seriously impaired $hen she e8ecuted the contract so
as to $arrant it>s nullity'
6uling'
/o. opposed to $ell%recognized statutory
presumptions o# regularity en-oyed by a notarizeddocument and that a contracting party to a notarized
contract is o# sound and disposing mind $hen
e8ecuting the contract'
The supreme )ourt held that the appellate court erred
in ruling that at the time o# the e8ecution o# the 2eed
o# &bsolute *ale on &pril 3C, !C! the menta
#aculties o# )armen 7zamiz $ere already seriously
impaired' The testimonies o# the respondents
$itnesses on the mental capacity o
)armen 7zamiz are #ar #rom being clear and
convincing'
' )arolina Lagura, a househelper o# )armen 7zamiz
testi#ied that $hen )armen 7zamiz $as con#ronted byPaz 7' Montalvan in /anuary !C! $ith the sale o
the Lahug property, )armen 7zamiz denied the same
*he testi#ied that )armen 7zamiz understood the
question then' 4o$ever, this declaration is inconsisten
$ith her ?)arolina>s@ statement that since !CC
)armen 7zamiz could not #ully understand the things
around her, that she $as physically #it but mentally could
not carry a conversation or recognize persons $ho
visited her' Furthermore, the disputed sale occurred
on &pril 3C, !C! or three ?@ months a#ter this alleged
con#rontation in /anuary !C!' This inconsistency $as
not e8plained by the respondents'
3' The revelation o# 2r' Faith Go did not also shed light
on the mental capacity o# )armen 7zamiz on the
relevant day % &pril 3C, !C! $hen the 2eed o# &bsolute
*ale $as e8ecuted and notarized' &t best, she merely
revealed that )armen 7zamiz $as su##ering #rom certain
in#irmities in her body and at times, she $as #orget#ul, bu
there $as no categorical statement tha
)armen 7zamiz succumbed to $hat the respondents
suggest as her alleged Dsecond childhoodE as early as
!C"' The petitioners> rebuttal $itness, 2r'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
9/46
dated &pril 3C, !C!, e8ecuted by )armen 7zamiz'
4o$ever, there are nine ?!@ other important documents
that $ere, signed by )armen 7zamiz either be#ore or
a#ter &pril 3C, !C! $hich $ere not assailed by the
respondents' *uch is contrary to their assertion o#
complete incapacity o# )armen 7zamiz to handle her
a##airs since !C"' The court agrees $ith the trial court>s
assessment that Dit is un#air #or the Krespondents to claim
soundness o# mind o# )armen 7zamiz $hen it bene#its
them and other$ise $hen it disadvantages them'E &
person is presumed to be o# sound mind at any particulartime and the condition is presumed to continue to e8ist, in
the absence o# proo# to the contrary' )ompetency and
#reedom #rom undue in#luence, sho$n to have e8isted in
the other acts done or contracts e8ecuted, are presumed
to continue until the contrary is sho$n'
The petition is hereby G6&5T.2 and the assailed
2ecision and 6esolution o# the )ourt o# &ppeals are
hereby 6.:.6*.2 and *.T &*I2.' The 2ecision o#
the 6egional Trial )ourt 6.I5*T&T.2'
RB-R! G. F1M1/IL1, *etitioners. 01 and B1RB-R2IP M1/1G-M-/! LIMI!-D and/FD M1//I/G 1G-/!2, res*ondentsF&)T*9
In !C!, respondent 5F2 International Manning
&gents Inc' hired the service o# petitioner 6oberto
Famanila as Messman #or 4&5*& 6IG&, a vessel
registered and o$ned by its principal and co%
respondent, Barbership Management +nlimited'
/une 3, !!0, $hile 4&5*& 6IG& $as doc1ed at the
port o# eure1a, )ali#ornia, +*&, and $hile petitioner
$as assisting in the loading operations, the latter
complained o# a headache' Petitioner e8perienced
dizziness and he subsequently collapsed'
+pon e8amination, it $as determined that he hadsudden attac1 o# le#t cerebral hemorrhage #rom a
rupture cerebral aneurysm' Petitioner under$ent a
brain operation and e $as con#ined at the .mmanuel
hospital at Portland, 7regon, +*&'
/uly !, !!0, he again under$ent a second brain
operation'
2ue to the physical and mental condition, he $as
repatriated to the Philippines'
&ug' 3, !!0, petitioner $as e8amined at the
&merican 4ospital in Intramuros, Manila, $here the
e8amining physician declared that he cannot go bac1
to sea duty and has been observed #or 30 days and
declared as permanently and totally disabled' &uthorized representatives o# the respondents
convinced the petitioner to amicably settle his claims
against the respondent by accepting the o##ered
amount o# ,300'
Petitioner accepted the o##er as evidenced by his
signature in the receipt and release dated Feb' 3C,
!!' The petitioner>s $i#e, Gloria Famanila and one
6ichard Famanila, acted as $itnesses in the signing
o# release'
/une , !!", petitioner #iled a complaint $ith the
5L6) praying #or an a$ard o# disability bene#its,
share in the insurance proceeds, moral damages and
attorney>s #ees'
&cting e8ecutive labor arbiter Balitaan dismissed the
complaint on the ground o# prescription'
&ppealed the decision $ith the 5L6) and even #iled a
Motion #or 6econsideration yet both $ere dismissed
#or the #act that these $ere $ithout merit'
Petitioner re#erred the case to the )ourt o# appeals
and raised the issue that, he did not sign the receip
and release voluntarily because he $as permanently
disabled and in #inancial constraints, but sti
dismissed the case #or lac1 o# merit'
I**+.9 s consent in the receipt and
release $as vitiated due to his disability, thereby ma1ing the
same :7I2 or +nen#orceableQ
6+LI5G9 *) said 5o'
:itiated consent does not ma1e a contract void and
unen#orceable' & vitiated consent only gives rise to
voidable agreement' +nder the )), vices o# consen
are Mista1e, :iolence, Intimidation, +ndue In#luence
or Fraud' I# consent is given through any o# the
a#orementioned vices o# consent, the contract is
voidable' & voidable contract is binding unless
annulled by a proper action in court'
Petitioner>s contention that his permanent and tota
disability vitiated his consent in the said agreemen
thereby renders it void and unen#orceable '
This court corrects it by mentioning that, disability is
not among the #actors that may vitiate the consent' In
the absence o# proo# o# vitiated consent, then the
court must upheld to the validity o# the receipt and
release'
In the case at bar, there are nothing in records
sho$ing that petitioner>s consent $as vitiated $hen
he signed the agreement'
The document entitled receipt and release $hich $as
attached by petitioner in its appeal does not sho$ onits #ace any violation o# la$ or public policy' In #act
the petitioner did not present any proo# to sho$ tha
the consideration #or the same is not reasonable and
acceptable'
5ot all $aiver and quitclaims are invalid as agains
public policy' I# the agreement $as voluntarily entered
into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is
binding on the parties and may not later be diso$ned
simply because o# change o# mind'
It is only $here there is clear and proo# that the $aiver
$as $angled #rom an unsuspecting or gullible person
or the terms o# the settlement are unconscionable on
its #ace, that the la$ $ill step in to annul thequestionable transaction'
In the case at bench, it $as sho$n that the petitione
made the $aiver voluntarily $ith #ull understanding o
$hat he $as doing, and the consideration #or the
quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction
must be recognized as a valid and binding
underta1ing'
Dire necessit' is not an acce*table ground $orannulling %aiver since it &as not been s&o%n t&atem*lo'ee %as $orce to sign it. The signing $aseven $itnessed by the petitioner>s $i#e, and one
6ichard T' Famanila'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
10/46
the decision o# )& $as a##irmed and denied the
petition'
0atalan vs Basa
Facts" In !AC, Feliciano )atalan $as discharged #rom activemilitary service' The Board o# Medical 7##icers o# the
2epartment o# :eteran #airs #ound that he $as un#it to render
military service due to his Jschizophrenic reactionsE'
In !A!, Feliciano got married to )orazon )erezo'
7n /une , !, a document $as e8ecuted, titled D&bsolute
2eed o# 275&TI75,E $herein Feliciano allegedly donated to
his sister Mercedes )atalan a parcel o# land located at
Pangasinan' The donation $as then registered $ith the
6egister o# 2eeds'
In !, People>s Ban1 and Trust )ompany ?presently 1no$n
as BPI@ #iled a *pecial Proceeding be#ore the )FI o#
Pangasinan to declare Feliciano incompetent' The trial court
issued its order #or ad-udication o# Incompetency #or &ppointing
Guardian #or the .state and Fi8ing &llo$ance o# Feliciano' Thecourt consequently appointed People>s Ban1 and Trust
)ompany as Feliciano>s guardian'
In !"C, Feliciano and )orazon donated a real property to their
son .ulogio' The spouses again, in !C, donated to their
children, &le8, Librada, and Renaida a parcel o# land' 7n the
same year, the spouses donated a parcel o# land in #avor o#
.ulogio and Florida )atalan'
)onversely, on March 3, !"!, Mercedes sold the property in
issue in #avor o# her children 2elia and /esus Basa ?herein
respondents@' The D2eed o# &bsolute *&L.E $as then
registered $ith the 6egister o# 2eeds'
In &pril o# !!", BPI acting as Feliciano>s guardian, #iled a case
be#ore the trial court #or the 2eclaration o# 5ullity o#
2ocuments, 6ecovery o# Possession and 7$nership $ith
damages against herein respondents'
BPI contented that Feliciano $as not o# sound mind and $as
there#ore incapable o# giving a valid consent' Thus, it claimed
that the 2eed o# &bsolute 275&TI75 $as void and the
subsequent 2eed o# &bsolute *&L. should li1e$ise be void,
#or Mercedes had no right to sell the property'
s disease' 4o$ever, the illness $ill $a8
and $ane over many years, $ith only very slo$ deterioration o
intellect'
From these scienti#ic studies it can be deduced that a person
su##ering #rom schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his
competence to intelligently dispose his property' By merely
alleging the e8istence o# schizophrenia, petitioners #ailed to
sho$ substantial proo# that at the date o# the donationFeliciano )atalan had lost total control o# his menta
#aculties' Furthermore, the presumption $as bolstered by the
e8istence o# the other contracts he entered into li1e his
marriage $ith )orazon and the other donations made in #avo
o# petitioners'
It must be noted that su##icient proo# o# his in#irmity to give
consent to contracts $as only established $hen the )FI o
Pangasinan declared him an incompetent on 2ecember 33
!'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
11/46
Finally, the petitioners raised the issue o# prescription and
laches #or the #irst time on appeal be#ore this )ourt' It is
su##icient to note that even i# the present appeal had
prospered, the 2eed o# 2onation $as still a voidable, not a
void, contract' &s such, it remained binding as it $as not
annulled in a proper action in court $ithin #our years' *Refer to
%rticle -05 and -0-
/ote"%rt. -05. !e follo4ing contracts are voida2le or annulla2le,
even t!oug! t!ere may !ave 2een no damage to t!econtracting $arties6
-. !ose 4!ere one of t!e $arties is inca$a2le of giving
consent to a contract7
8. !ose 4!ere t!e consent is vitiated 2y mista9e,
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
!ese contracts are 2inding, unless t!ey are annulled 2y a
$ro$er action in court. !ey are susce$ti2le of ratification.
%rt. -0-. !e action for annulment s!all 2e 2roug!t 4it!in
four years 333.
illanueva, petitionersvs 0&iong, respondentsFacts"6espondents Florentino and .lisera )hiong $ere married
sometime in !0 but have been separated in #act since !"'
2uring their marriage, they acquired a lot situated at Poblacion,
2ipolog )ity, covered by a T)T issued by the 6egistry o#
2eeds o# Ramboanga del 5orte'
*ometime in 4?>5, Florentino sold the one%hal# $estern portiono# the lot to petitioners #or PC,000, payable in installments'
Therea#ter, Florentino allo$ed petitioners to occupythe lot and
build a store, a shop, and a house thereon' *hortly a#ter their
last installment payment, petitioners demanded #rom
respondents the e8ecution o# a deed o# sale in their #avor'
.lisera, ho$ever, re#used to sign a deed o# sale'
7n 4??4, .lisera #iled a civil case #or )omplaint #or (uieting o#Title $ith 2amages' 7n !!3, petitioners #iled a )omplaint #or
*peci#ic Per#ormance $ith 2amages'
7n May !!3, Florentino e8ecuted the questioned 2eed o#
&bsolute *ale in #avor o# petitioners'
R!0" 1//3L-Dthe deed o# absolute sale dated May !!3,and ordered *etitioners to vacate the lot and remove allimprovements thereinH DI2MI22-D )ivil )ase #iled bypetitioners, but ordered Florentinoto return to petitioners theconsideration o# the sale $ith interest #rom May !!3'
01" 1FFIRM-D.Petitionerscontend that the lot is not a con-ugal property' Itbelongs e8clusively to Florentino because respondents $ere
already separated in #act at the time o# sale and that the shareo# .lisera, had previously been sold to *pouses /esus ;'
)astro and &ida )uenca' They also aver that the separation in
#act resulted in its actual liquidation' .ven assuming that the lot
is still con-ugal, the transaction should not be entirely voided as
Florentino had one%hal# share over it'
-liseracounters that the sale o# the lot to petitioners $ithouther 1no$ledge, consent or authority, $as void because the lot
is con-ugal property' It $as neither authorized by any
competent court nor did it redound to her or their childrens
bene#it' &s proo# o# the lots con-ugal nature, she presented a
trans#er certi#icate o# title, a real property ta8 declaration, and a
Memorandum o# &greement $hich she and her husband had
e8ecuted #or the administration o# their con-ugal properties'
Issue"?@
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
12/46
have been the sub-ect matter o# the contract, $ith
their #ruits, and the price $ith its interest, e8cept in
cases provided by la$'
*trictly applying &rticle !C to the instant case, petitioners
should return to respondents the land $ith its #ruits and
respondent Florentino should return the sum o# PC,000, $hich
he received as the price o# the land, together $ith interest
thereon'
20" Petitioners have been using the land and have derivedbene#it #rom it -ust as respondent Florentino has used the price
o# the land in the sum o# PC,000' 4ence, it $ould be equitableto consider the t$o amounts as o##setting each other' )&
decision 1FFIRM-D =I! MDIFI01!I/' The order #or thepayment o# interest is D-L-!-D'
1M1D . 12/, JR., petitioner,vs'
2P32-2 F-LI and M1IM1 P1R1G12,respondents'
The controversy commenced $ith the #iling o# an e-ectment
complainton &pril 3, !! be#ore Branch o# the Municipal
Trial )ourt in )ities ?MT))@ o# 2agupan )ity by herein
petitioner &mado R' &yson, as represented by his natural
#ather Rosimo *' RarenoA ?Rareno@, against respondent%
spouses Feli8 and Ma8ima Paragas' 6espondents e8ecuted
an a##idavit declaring that9
' That $e are occupants o# a parcel o# land o$ned
by &mado Ll' &ysonH
3' That $e occupy the said land by tolerance $ithout
paying any rental $hatsoeverH
' That $e #urther agree to vacate the a#oresaid land$ithin three ?@ months #rom the date hereo# and to
remove and trans#er our house there#rom to another
placeH
A' That in consideration o# vacating the said parcel o#
land the amount o# T$enty Thousand Pesos
?P30,000'00@ shall be paid to usH and, that the amount
o# Ten Thousand Pesos ?P0,000'00@ shall be paid
upon signing o# this a##idavit and the balance o# Ten
Thousand Pesos ?P0,000'00@ shall be paid upon
removal o# our house on the third month #rom date
hereo#'
2espite the receipt o# the P0,000'00 upon the e8ecution o#
the #idavit, respondent%spouses re#used to vacate the land as
agreed uponH and ?@ despite demands, respondent%spouses
still re#used to vacate, thus constraining him to #ile the
complaint' In their &ns$er, respondent%spouses alleged that
Rareno had no personality and authority to #ile the case and
the #iling o# the complaint $as made in bad #aith'
MT)) decided in #avor o# petitioner' #irmed by 6T), )&, *)
Mean$hile, on 7ctober , !!, during the pendency o# the
appeal $ith the 6T), respondent%spouses #iled against
petitioner, the heirs o# Blas F' 6ayos, the spouses 2el#in and
Gloria &log a complaint #or declaration o# nullity o# deed o
sale, transactions, documents and titles $ith a prayer #o
preliminary in-unction and damages'
The complaint alleged respondent Ma8ima is a co%o$ner o# a
parcel o# land $hich is her S share o# land inherited #rom her
#ather' *ometime prior to &pril , !, respondent Feli8, then
an employee o# the de#unct 2agupan )olleges ?no$ +niversity
o# Pangasinan@ #ailed to account #or the amount o# P,000'00
It $as agreed that respondent Feli8 $ould pay the said amoun
by installment to the 2agupan )olleges' Pursuant to tha
agreement, Blas F' 6ayos and &mado Ll' &yson, then both
occupying high positions in the said institution, required
respondent%spouses to sign, $ithout e8plaining to them, a
2eed o# &bsolute *ale on &pril , ! over responden
Ma8ima>s real property under threat that respondent Feli8
$ould be incarcerated #or misappropriation i# they re#used to do
so'
The complaint #urther alleged that later, respondent%spouses
true to their promise to reimburse the de#alcated amount, too1
pains to pay their obligation in installments regularly deducted
#rom the salaries received by respondent Feli8 #rom 2agupan)ollegesH that the payments totaled P,"!'!H tha
not$ithstanding the #ull payment o# the obligation, &mado Ll
&yson and Blas F' 6ayos did nothing to cancel the purported
2eed o# &bsolute *aleH and that they $ere shoc1ed $hen they
received a copy o# the complaint #or e-ectment #iled by
petitioner'
Later, the land $as later conveyed to &yson and 6ayos by
virtue o# the 2eed o# *ale' The portion belonging to 6ayos $as
sold by his heirs to spouses &log and the potion belonging to
&yson $as ad-udicated to his adopted son, the Petitioner'
6T) ruled in #avor o# respondent declaring the deed o# sale asan equitable mortgage'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
13/46
2el#in and Gloria &log to the late Blas F' 6ayos, there
being no proo# adduced by the plainti##s as to the
actual current mar1et value o# the said propertyH
)& denied the petition'
Petitioner>sc ontentions9
Petitioner contends that respondent%spouses are bound by the
-udicial admissions they made both in the e-ectment case andin the case #or declaration o# nullity o# the 2eed o# &bsolute
*ale'
Petitioner #urther argues that the action instituted be#ore the
6T), Branch A3, 2agupan )ity has already prescribed'
&ccording to him, the complaint alleged that the 2eed o#
&bsolute *ale $as e8ecuted through #raud, ma1ing the said
contract merely voidable, and the action to annul voidable
contracts based on #raud prescribed in #our ?A@ years #rom the
discovery o# #raud' 4e insists that the registration o# the 2eed
o# &bsolute *ale occurred on May A, !, $hich operated as
constructive notice o# the #raud to the $hole $orld, including
respondent%spouses' Thus, petitioner concludes that the actionhad long prescribed $hen they #iled the same on 7ctober ,
!!, since its cause had accrued C years ago'%%%M&I5
I**+.
Petitioner adds that respondent%spouses are bound by
estoppel and guilty o# laches in light o# the -udicial admissions
they have already made and the unreasonable length o# time
that had lapsed be#ore they questioned the validity o# the 2eed
o# &bsolute *ale and the #idavit they e8ecuted on &pril C,
!!3'
4e also asseverates that the 2eed o# &bsolute *ale is a true
sale and not an equitable mortgage, arguing that the allegedpayments made by respondent Feli8 $ere made #rom
2ecember 3!, ! to 2ecember ", !C0, long a#ter the
e8ecution o# the contract on &pril , !H that respondent%
spouses only paid realty ta8es over their house and not on the
disputed landH that their possession o# the property $as by his
mere toleranceH that there $as no evidence pro##ered that the
amount o# P,000'00 as consideration #or the sale $as
unusually inadequate in !H and that the other co%o$ners o#
the land did not question or protest the subdivision thereo#
leading to the issuance o# T)T 5o' !0 in his name'
Lastly, petitioner claims that he is a trans#eree in good #aith,
having had no notice o# the in#irmity a##ecting the title o# his
predecessor &mado Ll' &yson over the property' 4e says that
he $as only e8ercising his right as an heir $hen he ad-udicated
unto himsel# the parcel o# land pertaining to his adoptive
#ather,C resulting in the issuance o# T)T 5o' !0 in his
name, and, thus, should not be penalized #or his e8ercise o# a
legal right'
4.L2 9
:irst'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
14/46
the land she co%o$ned $as already partitioned, such that the
payments o# real estate ta8es in her name $ere limited to the
improvement on the land'
1n equitable mortgage is a voidable contract. 1s suc&, itma' be annulled %it&in $our E8H 'ears $rom t&e time t&ecause o$ action accrues. !&is case, &o%ever, not onl'involves a contract resulting $rom $raud, but covers atransaction ridden %it& t&reat, intimidation, andcontinuing undue in$luence %&ic& started %&en*etitioners ado*tive $at&er 1mado Ll. 1'son and Blas F.Ra'os, FeliCs su*eriors at Dagu*an 0olleges, *racticall'bullied res*ondent@s*ouses into signing t&e Deed o$1bsolute 2ale under t&reat o$ incarceration. !&us, t&e$our@'ear *eriod s&ould start $rom t&e time t&e de$ect int&e consent ceases.6;=&ile at $irst glance, it %ould seemt&at t&e de$ect in t&e consent o$ res*ondent@s*ousesceased eit&er $rom t&e *a'ment o$ t&e obligation t&roug&salar' deduction or $rom t&e deat& o$ 1mado Ll. 1'sonand Blas F. Ra'os, it is a**arent t&at suc& de$ect o$consent never ceased u* to t&e time o$ t&e signing o$ t&e1$$idavit on 1*ril >, 4??6 %&en areno, acting on be&al$ o$*etitioner, caused res*ondent FeliC to be broug&t to &im,
and ta#ing advantage o$ t&e latter being unlettered, undul'in$luenced FeliC into eCecuting t&e said 1$$idavit $or a $eeo$ P4:,:::.::.69!&e com*laint *ra'ing $or t&e nullit' o$ t&eDeed o$ 1bsolute 2ale %as $iled on ctober 44, 4??7, %ell
%it&in t&e $our@'ear *rescri*tive *eriod.
6egarding the #inality o# the ad-udication o# physical
possession in #avor o# petitioner, it may be reiterated that the
right o# possession is a necessary incident o# o$nership' This
ad-udication o# o$nership o# the property to respondent%
spouses must include the delivery o# possession to them since
petitioner has not sho$n a superior right to retain possession
o# the land independently o# his claim o# o$nership $hich is
herein re-ected
Petiton denied'
GR-GRI D-2!R-1,vs'1!!. M1. GR10I1 RIK1@PL1 and M1. F- 1L1R12,6espondents'!e :acts
on 5ovember , !C! Pedro L' 6ioza ?6ioza@ died
leaving several heirs, including herein respondents
Ma' Gracia 6' Plazo ?Plazo@ and Ma' Fe 6' &laras
?&laras@'
In the course o# settling 6ioza>s estate, Plazo $rote
a letter to the 6egistry o# 2eeds requesting #orcerti#ied true copies o# all titles in 6ioza>s name,
including a sugarland located at Barangay +tod,
Batangas covered by T)T A0' s 7##ice covering the
same +tod sugarland and canceling the missing T)T
A0' The ne$ title $as in the name o# the 2estreza
*pouses
6espondent Plazo also $ent to the Bureau o# Interna
6evenue ?BI6@ o# Batangas )ity to inquire on any
record involving the sale o# the +tod sugarland' But i
did not have any record o# sale o# the sugarland
covered by T)T A0'
Finally testi#ied that be#ore the death o# 6ioza, he
gave her the title o# a land that he $anted to mortgage
to her uncle' 6ioza told her that the land $as located
at Barangay +tod, 5asugbu, Batangas' *he did not
ho$ever, loo1 at the number o# the title' +nable to
secure a mortgage #rom her uncle, she returned the
title to her #ather and never sa$ it again'
Their discovery prodded respondents Plazo and
&laras to #ile a complaint against the 2estreza
spouses and the 6egister o# 2eeds be#ore the 6T)
claiming serious irregularities in the issuance o# T)T
!' They as1ed that T)T ! be nulli#ied, thaT)T A0 be restored, and that the 2estrezas be
ordered to reconvey the land to the 6ioza estate'
In his ans$er, &tty' Bonuan denied that T)T A0
$as missing since he had the title sa#e in his o##ice
and no transaction a##ecting it had been recorded
s #ailure to repor
the transcaton to the 6T) notarial section ho$eve
the 2estrea spouses destroyed such presumption
$hen they #ailed to prove its authenticity and
genuineness, #urthermore the destreza spouses
claimed that they have paid rinoza 00T but the price
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt27 -
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
15/46
stated in the 27* $as only 0T placed the veracity o#
27* in doubt' 4ence this petition'
Issues
$hether or not su##icient evidence $arranted the nulli#ication o#
the deed o# sale that the late 6ioza e8ecuted in #avor o# the
2estrezas'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
16/46
shall not be incumbered, alienated, or
trans#erred to any person, corporation,
association, or partnership not quali#ied to
acquire public lands under the said &ct and
its amendmentsH 8 8 8
7n *eptember !", 6u#ina and Maria sold the
&ntipolo property to )anuto Galido #or P30,000' &
deed o# sale $as e8ecuted bet$een them and
)armen &ldana delivered the o$ner>s duplicate copy
o# 7)T 5o' to respondent'
7n !CC, the .niceo heirs ?actual occupant o# the
property@ registered a 5otice o# Loss $ith the 6egistry
o# 2eeds o# Mar1ina )ity and #iled a petition #or the
issuance o# a ne$ o$ner>s duplicate copy o# 7)T 5o'
$ith Branch "3 o# the 6T) o# &ntipolo' 6T)
#ound that the certi#ied true copy o# 7)T 5o'
contained no annotation in #avor o# any person,
corporation or entity' It then ordered the 6egistry o#
2eeds to issue a second o$ner>s copy o# 7)T 5o'
in #avor o# the .niceo heirs and declared the
original o$ner>s copy o# 7)T 57' cancelled and
considered o# no #urther value'
7n &pril !C!, the 6egistry o# 2eeds issued a second
o$ner>s copy o# 7)T 5o' in #avor o# the .niceoheirs'
Petitioner alleges that sometime in February !!,
Leonila Bolinas ?a relative o# the .niceo heirs@ came
to the o##ice o# &lberto Tronio /r ?petitioner>s general
manager@ and o##ered to sell the &ntipolo property'
Tronio then did an on%site inspection and ascertained
that 7)T 5o' $as clean and had no lien and
encumbrances' Petitioner then bought the &ntipolo
property'
7n March A, !!, respondent caused the
annotation o# his adverse claim in 7)T 5o' '
7n March 30, !!, the .niceo heirs e8ecuted a deed
o# absolute sale in #avor o# petitioner covering lots UA o# the &ntipolo property #or P00,000' 5e$ T)Ts
$ere issued'
7n &pril , !!, the .niceo heirs again e8ecuted
another deed o# sale in #avor o# petitioner covering the
remaining lots o# the &ntipolo property #or P,000,000'
The previous T)T $as cancelled and a ne$ one $as
issued in the name o# petitioner'
7n &ugust ", !!, the 2.56 *ecretary approved
the deed o# sale bet$een the .niceo heirs and
respondent'
7n /anuary !!, respondent #iled a civil
complaint $ith the trial court against the .niceo heirs
and petitioner' 6espondent prayed #or thecancellation o# the certi#icates o# title issued in #avor o#
petitioner, and the registration o# the deed o# sale and
issuance o# a ne$ trans#er certi#icate o# title in #avor o#
respondent'
7n A /uly 3000, the trial court rendered its decision
dismissing the case #or lac1 o# legal and #actual basis'
6espondent appealed to the )ourt o# &ppeals' 7n 30
2ecember 300A, the )& rendered a decision
reversing the trial court>s decision' &ggrieved by the
)&>s decision and resolution, petitioner elevated the
case be#ore this )ourt'
Petitioners 0ontentions"
The 2.56 *ecretary gave only his approval #or the deed osale in #avor o# respondent a#ter 3 years #rom the date the
deed $as e8ecuted'
VThe deed o# sale to respondent $as a #orgery'
VThe deed o# sale in #avor o# respondent is an equitable
mortgage because the .niceo heirs remained in possession o
the &ntipolo property despite the e8ecution o# the deed o# sale'
VThe subsequent sale must be upheld because the petitioner is
a buyer in good #aith'VThe respondent is guilty o# laches because he slept on his
rights by #ailing to register the sale o# the &ntipolo property a
the earliest possible time'
Issue"
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
17/46
7. >n :orgery6 &s correctly held by the )&, $orger' can neverbe *resumed.The party alleging #orgery is mandated to proveit $ith clear and convincing evidence' s adverse claim'
Petitioner purchased the &ntipolo property only on 30 March
!! and &pril !! as sho$n by the dates in the deeds o#
sale' 7n the same dates, the 6egistry o# 2eeds issued ne$
T)Ts in #avor o# petitioner $ith the annotated adverse claim'
)onsequently, the adverse claim registered prior to the second
sale charged petitioner $ith constructive notice o# the de#ect in
the title o# .niceo heirs' There#ore, petitioner cannot be
deemed as a purchaser in good #aith $hen they bought and
registered the &ntipolo property'
;. >n &ac!es6 The essence o# laches is the $ailure or neglect,$or an unreasonable and uneC*lained lengt& o$ time, to dot&at %&ic&, t&roug& due diligence, could &ave been doneearlier, t&us giving rise to a *resum*tion t&at t&e *art'entitled to assert it &ad eit&er abandoned or declined toassert it.
6espondent discovered in !! that a ne$ o$ner>s
copy o# 7)T 5o' $as issued to the .niceo heirs'6espondent #iled a criminal case against the .niceo heirs #or
#alse testimony'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
18/46
)&I interposed the #ollo$ing de#enses9 ?a@ *pouses
:iloria have no right to as1 #or a re#und as the sub-ect
tic1ets are non%re#undableH ?b@ Fernando cannot insist
on using the tic1et in Lourdes> name #or the purchase
o# a round trip tic1et to Los &ngeles since the same is
non%trans#erableH ?c@ as Mager is not a )&I employee,
)&I is not liable #or any o# her actsH ?d@ )&I, its
employees and agents did not act in bad #aith as to
entitle *pouses :iloria to moral and e8emplary
damages and attorney>s #ees'
6T) ruled in #avor o# the spouses :iloria'
7n appeal, )& reversed the decision o# 6T)' 4ence,
the present petition'
I223-"
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
19/46
already present at the time o# the negotiation and
per#ection stages o# the contract'
&ccordingly, by pursuing the remedy o# rescission
under &rticle !, the :ilorias had impliedly admitted
the validity o# the sub-ect contracts, #or#eiting their
right to demand their annulment' & party cannot rely
on the contract and claim rights or obligations under it
and at the same time impugn its e8istence or validity'
Indeed, litigants are en-oined #rom ta1ing inconsistent
positions'
R-G1L FILM2, I/0.,petitioner# vs. G1BRI-L0/0-P0I/, respondent.
In !!, respondent Gabriel JGabbyJ )oncepcion, a
television artist and movie actor, through his manager
Lolita *olis, entered into a contract $ith petitioner
6egal Films, Inc', #or services to be rendered by
respondent in petitioner>s motion pictures' Petitioner,
in turn, undertoo1 to give t$o parcels o# land to
respondent, one located in Mari1ina and the other in
)avite, on top o# the Dtalent #eesE it had agreed to pay'
In !!, the parties rene$ed the contract,
incorporating the same underta1ing on the part o#
petitioner to give respondent the t$o parcels o# land
mentioned in the #irst agreement' 2espite the
appearance o# respondent in several #ilms produced
by petitioner, the latter #ailed to comply $ith its
promise to convey to respondent the t$o
a#orementioned lots'
7n 0 May !!A, respondent and his manager #iled
an action against petitioner be#ore the 6egional Trial
)ourt o# (uezon )ity, #or rescission o# contract $ith
damages' In his complaint, respondent contendedthat he $as entitled to rescind the contract, plus
damages, and to be released #rom #urther
commitment to $or1 e8clusively #or petitioner o$ing to
the latter>s #ailure to honor the agreement'
Instead o# #iling an ans$er to the complaint, petitioner
moved #or its dismissal on the allegation that the
parties had settled their di##erences
amicably' Petitioner averred that both parties had
e8ecuted an agreement, dated " /une !!A, $hich
$as to so operate as an addendum to the !! and
!! contracts bet$een them' The agreement $as
signed by a representative o# petitioner and by *olispurportedly acting #or and in behal# o# respondent
)oncepcion'
7n 0 *eptember !!A, *olis #iled a motion to
dismiss the complaint reiterating that she, acting #or
hersel# and #or respondent )oncepcion, had already
settled the case amicably $ith petitioner' 7n "
7ctober !!A, respondent )oncepcion himsel#
opposed the motion to dismiss contending that
the addendum, containing provisions grossly
disadvantageous to him, $as e8ecuted $ithout his
1no$ledge and consent' 6espondent stated that
*olis had since ceased to be his manager and had no
authority to sign the addendum #or him'
2uring the preliminary con#erence held on 3 /une
!!, petitioner intimated to respondent and his
counsel its $illingness to allo$ respondent to be
released #rom his !! and !! contracts $ith
petitioner rather than to #urther pursue
the addendum$hich respondent had challenged'
7n 0 /uly !!, respondent #iled a mani#estation
$ith the trial court to the e##ect that he $as no$ $illing
to honor the addendumto the !! and !!
contracts and to have it considered as a compromise
agreement as to $arrant a -udgment in accordance
there$ith'
7n 3A 7ctober !!, the trial court issued an orde
rendering -udgment on compromise based on the
sub-ect addendum$hich respondent had previously
challenged but later agreed to honor pursuant to his
mani#estation' Petitioner moved #or reconsideration
having been denied, it then elevated the case to the
)ourt o# &ppeals $hich a##irmed the trial court>s
decision' 2issatis#ied, petitioner elevated the case to
the *upreme )ourt, hence this petition'
I**+.9
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
20/46
The addendum resulted in an unen#orceable
contract'
It can be rati#ied but the rati#ication should
be made be#ore its revocation by the other
contracting party' The adamant re#usal o#
respondent to accept the terms o#
the addendum constrained petitioner, during the
preliminary con#erence held on 3 /une !!, to
instead e8press its $illingness to release respondent
#rom his contracts prayed #or in his complaint and to
thereby #orego the
re-ected addendum' 6espondents subsequent
attempt to rati#y the addendum came much too late
#or, by then, the addendum had already been
deemed revo1ed by petitioner'
Liton)ua vs. Fernande Ebli0on 8t&-1M case 4;HFacts o$ t&e case"
Involved in the case are t$o parcel o# lands registered in
the 6egistry o# deeds o# *an Pablo )ity $ith T)T 5o' T%" and T%"A o$ned by the heirs o# 2omingo
Ticzon and 4eirs o# Paz Ticzon .leosida respectively'
*ometime in !!, bro1ers Lourdes &limaro and &gapito
Fisico o##ered to sell to petitioners &ntonio ' Liton-ua
and &urelio ' Liton-ua the lands mentioned above'
Petitioners $ere sho$n a locator plan and copies o# the
titles sho$ing that the o$ners o# the properties $ere
represented by Mary Mediatri8 Fernandez and Gregorio
T' .leosida, respectively' The bro1ers told the petitioners
that they $ere authorized by respondent Fernandez to
o##er the property #or sale'
Petitioners made 3 ocular inspections o# the property
$here they sa$ some people gathering coconuts'
The respondents and the bro1ers met $ith the petitioners
at the petitioner>s Mandaluyong )ity o##ice $here they
agreed that the petitioners $ould buy the property
consisting o# ,"A3 sq' mts' For PhP0 per square
meter or a total sum o# PhP,0!C,00' Petitioners
contented that in the meeting, it $as agreed upon that
the o$ners $ould shoulder the capital gains ta8, trans#er
ta8, and the e8penses #or the documentation o# the sale'
Petitioners contended that it $as agreed upon in the
same meeting that they $ill meet again on C th2ecember,
!! to #inalize the sale and that respondent Fernandez
$ould present *pecial Po$er o# &ttorney e8ecuted by the
o$ners o# the property authorizing her to sell in their
behal#, and to e8ecute a deed o# absolute sale thereon'
The petitioners, in turn, $ould remit the purchase price to
the o$ners, through respondent Fernandez'
4o$ever, only the bro1er &gapito Fisico attended the
meeting $here he in#ormed the petitioners that
respondent Fernandez $as encountering some problems
$ith the tenanrs and $as trying to $or1 out a sett lement
$ith them'
th /anuary !!, respondents $rote a letter to
respondent Fernandez demanding that the sale be
#inalized by 0th/anuary, !!'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
21/46
#ailed to satis#y &rt' A0 o# the 5e$ )ivil )ode $hich
requires certain classes o# contracts to be in $riting'
The statute o# #rauds does not deprive the parties the
right to contract but merely regulates the #ormalities o#
the contract necessary to render it en#orceable' The
purpose o# $hich is to prevent #raud and per-ury in the
en#orcement obligations #or their e8istence to be
dependent on the unassisted memory o# the
$itnesses but by requiring certain enumerated
contracts and transactions to be evidenced in $riting
signed by the party to be charged'
The statute is satis#ied by an e8ecution o# a note or a
memorandum $hich is su##icient to state the
requirements o# the statute' For a note or
memorandum to satis#y the statute, it must be
complete in itsel# and cannot rest partly in $riting and
partly in parol'
The note or memorandum must contain9
o The names o# the parties
o The terms and conditions o# the contract
o & description o# the property su##icient to
render it capable o# identi#ication'
Further, the note or memorandum should include the
essential elements o# the contract e8pressed $ith
certainty $ithout resorting to parol evidence' *uch
must also be signed by the said party or by his agent
duly authorized in $riting'
There $ere no documentary evidenced on record that
the respondents%o$ners authorizing respondent
Fernandez to sell their properties to another'
&rt' C"C o# the 5)) provides that a special po$er o#
attorney is necessary to enter into any contract #or
trans#er o# o$nerships'
The court #urther emphasized that petitioners, as
noted businessmen, ought to be very #amiliar $ith the
intricacies o# business transactions such as a sale o#
a real property
J-232 M. G3/, *etitioner, vs.J2- !-FIL !.M-R01D
In the local elections o# !!, respondent vied #or the
gubernatorial post in Pampanga' +pon respondent>s request,
petitioner, o$ner o# /MG Publishing 4ouse, a printing shop
located in *an Fernando, Pampanga, submitted to respondent
dra#t samples and price quotation o# campaign materials' By
petitioner>s claim, respondent>s $i#e had told him that
respondent already approved his price quotation and that hecould start printing the campaign materials, hence, he did print
campaign materials li1e posters bearing respondent>s
photograph, lea#lets containing the slate o# party candidates,
sample ballots, poll $atcher identi#ication cards, and stic1ers'
Mean$hile, on March , !!, respondent>s sister%in%la$,
Lilian *oriano ?Lilian@ obtained #rom petitioner Jcash advanceJ
o# P3,000 allegedly #or the allo$ances o# poll $atchers $ho
$ere attending a seminar and #or other related e8penses' Lilian
ac1no$ledged on petitioner>s !! diary! receipt o# the
amount'
Petitioner later sent respondent a *tatement o# &ccount in
the total amount o# P3,"",!0 itemized as #ollo$s9 PA0,0
#or /MG Publishing 4ouseH PC",! #or Metro &ngeles
PrintingH PAA,!00 #or *t' /oseph Printing PressH and
P3,000, the Jcash advanceJ obtained by Lilian'
2espite repeated demands and respondent>s promise to pay
respondent #ailed to settle the balance o# his account to
petitioner'
7n petitioner>s claim that Lilian, on his ?respondent>s@ behal#
had obtained #rom him a cash advance o# P3,000respondent denied having given her authority to do so and
having received the same'
&s adverted to earlier, the trial court rendered -udgment in
#avor o# petitioner'
&lso as earlier adverted to, the )ourt o# &ppeals reversed the
trial court>s decision and dismissed the complaint #or lac1 o
cause o# action'
Issue" s claim o# 3,000 isunen#orceable'
By the contract o# agency a person binds himsel# to rendesome service or to do something in representation or on behal
o# another, $ith the consent or authority o# the latter'3
)ontracts entered into in the name o# another person by one
$ho has been given no authority or legal representation or $ho
has acted beyond his po$ers are classi#ied as unauthorized
contracts and are declared unen#orceable, unless they are
rati#ied'
Generally, the agency may be oral, unless the la$ requires a
speci#ic #orm'3C 4o$ever, a special po$er o# attorney is
necessary #or an agent to, as in this case, borro$ money
unless it be urgent and indispensable #or the preservation o
the things $hich are under administration'3! *ince nothing in
this case involves the preservation o# things unde
administration, a determination o# $hether *oriano had the
special authority to borro$ money on behal# o# respondent is in
order'
Petitioner>s testimony #ailed to categorically state, ho$ever
$hether the loan $as made on behal# o# respondent or o# his
$i#e'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
22/46
the name o# the principal, other$ise, it $ill bind the agent only'
It is not enough merely that the agent $as in #act authorized to
ma1e the mortgage, i# he has not acted in the name o# the
principal'
/-L2/ 01B1L-2 and RI! 01B1L-2 v. 014>t&0ase
Facts9
' 6u#ino )abales died on /uly W and le#t a ,"A%sq
m parcel o# land ?Brgy' 6izal, *ogod, *outhern Leyte@
to his surviving $i#e *aturnina and children
?Boni#acio, &lbino, Francisco, Leonora, &lberto U
petitioner 6ito@'
4st21L- =I! RIG! ! R-P3R012-3' /uly W"9 brothers U co%o$ners Boni#acio, &lbino U
&lberto sold the sub-ect property to 2r' )ayetano
)orrompido #or P3T, $ right to repurchase $in C
years'
X The siblings divided the proceeds o# the sale
among themselves, each getting a share o# P''X &lberto secured a note ?DvaleE@ #rom 2r' )orrompido
in the amount o# P00'
X !"39 &lberto died leaving his $i#e and son,
petitioner 5elson'
' 2ec W"9 $in the C%year redemption period, Boni#acio
and &lbino tendered their payment o# P' each to
2r' )orrompido' But 2r' )orrompido only released
the document o# sale $ith pacto de retro a$ter2aturnina *aid $or t&e s&are o$ &er deceased son,1lberto, including &is Avale( o$ P7::.
2-0/D 21L-A' *aturnina U her A children Boni#acio, &lbino,
Francisco U Leonora sold the sub-ect parcel o# land to
respondents%spouses /esus U &nunciacion Feliano
#or PCT'
PRI2I/ I/ !- D--D 21L-' The 2eed o# *ale provided9 It is hereby declared and
understood that the amount o# P3,3C corresponding
to the 4eirs o# &lberto )abales and to 6ito )abales
$ho are still minors upon the e8ecution o# this
instrument are held in trust by the :.52.. and to be
paid and delivered only to them upon reaching the
age o# 3'
1FFID1I! R-" R-0-I1BL- F P-!I!I/-R/-L2/ E2on o$ 1lbertoH
' *aturnina and her A children e8ecuted an a##idavit to
the e##ect that petitioner 5elson ?son o# &lberto@ $ould
only receive the amount o# P"'A $hen he reaches
the age o# 3 considering that *aturnina paid 2r'
)orrompido P!' #or the obligation o# his #ather
&lberto ? P' #or his share in the redemption o#
the sale $ith pacto de retro as $ell as his DvaleE o#
P00'00@
23B2-;, %&en &e %as68 '.o.'
47. 01 MDIFI-D R!02 D-0I2I/.
X 2ale b' 2aturnina o$ *etitioner Ritos undivideds&are to t&e *ro*ert' %as unen$orceable $or lac#o$ aut&orit' or legal re*resentation but t&at t&econtract %as e$$ectivel' rati$ied b' *etitioneRitos recei*t o$ t&e *roceeds on Jul' 68, >;.X Further, *etitioner /elson is co@o%ner to t&eeCtent o$ 4Q9 o$ sub)ect *ro*ert' as 2aturnina %asnot subrogated to 1lbertos rig&ts %&en s&ere*urc&ased &is s&are to t&e *ro*ert'' It #urthedirected petitioner 5elson to pay the estate o# the late
*aturnina )abales the amount o# P!'
representing the amount $hich the latter paid #or the
obligation o# petitioner 5elson>s late #ather &lberto'
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
23/46
X Finally, ho$ever, it denied *etitioner /elsonsclaim $or redem*tion $or &is $ailure to tender orconsign in court t&e redem*tion mone' %it&in t&e*eriod *rescribed b' la%.
Issues" ;, *etitioner Ritoe$$ectivel' rati$ied it. !&is act o$ rati$ication rendered t&esale valid and binding as to &im.
:7I2 )75T6&)T 7F *&L. ?Petitioner 5elson, son o
deceased &lberto@
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
24/46
' .
X 6ecords sho$ that in 4?>>, petitioner 5elson, then oma-ority age, $as in#ormed o# the sale o# sub-ect property
Moreover, it $as noted by )& that petitioner 5elson $as
li1e$ise in#ormed thereo# in4??7 and he signi#ied his intentionto redeem sub-ect property during a barangay conciliation
process'
X But he only #iled the complaint #or legal redemption and
damages on /anuary 3, 4??5,certainly more than thirty days#rom learning about the sale'
S !&e 0ourt is satis$ied t&at t&ere %as su$$icient notice o$
t&e sale to *etitioner /elson. The 0%day redemption periodcommenced in !!, a#ter petitioner 5elson sought the
barangay conciliation process to redeem his property' By
/anuary 3, !!, $hen petitioner 5elson #iled a complaint #o
legal redemption and damages, it is clear that the thirty%day
period had already e8pired'
9. Petitioner /elson, as correctl' &eld b' 01, can nolonger redeem sub)ect *ro*ert'. But &e and &is mot&eremain co@o%ners t&ereo$ %it& res*ondents@s*ouses1ccordingl', title to sub)ect *ro*ert' must include t&em6egister o# 2eeds o# *outhern Leyte $as 762.6.2 to cance
7riginal )erti#icate o# Title 5o' "0 and to issue in lieu
thereo# a ne$ certi#icate o# title in the name o# respondents%spouses /esus and &nunciacion Feliano #or the " portion
and petitioner 5elson )abales and his mother #or the
remaining " portion, pro indiviso'
Penalber vs 6amos
!- F10!31L 1/!-0-D-/! F !- 012- I2 12FLL=2"
Petitioner is the mother o# respondent Leticia and the
mother%in%la$ o# respondent (uirino, husband o
Leticia' 6espondent Barte8, Inc', on the other hand, isa domestic corporation $hich bought #rom responden
spouses 6amos one o# the t$o properties involved in
this case'
7n C February !C", petitioner #iled be#ore the 6T)
a )omplaint #or 2eclaration o# 5ullity o# 2eeds and
Titles, 6econveyance, 2amages, $ith &pplication #o
a
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
25/46
K' The lot $ould be bought by respondent spouses 6amos #or
and in behal# o# herein petitionerH
K3' The consideration o# PC0,000'00 #or said lot $ould be paid
by respondent spouses 6amos #rom the accumulated earnings
o# the storeH
K' *ince respondent spouses 6amos have the better credit
standing, they $ould be made to appear in the 2eed o# *ale as
the vendees so that the title to be issued in their names could
be used by them to secure a loan $ith $hich to e8pand the
business o# petitioner'
In accordance $ith the above agreement, respondent
spouses 6amos allegedly entered into a contract o#
sale $ith Mendoza over the Boni#acio property, and
T)T covering said property $as issued in the names
o# respondent spouses 6amos'
7n *eptember !CA, respondent spouses 6amos
returned the management o# the hard$are store to
petitioner' 7n the bases o# receipts and
disbursements, petitioner asserted that the Boni#acio
property $as #ully paid out o# the #unds o# the store' It
appears that be#ore management o# the store $as
trans#erred a beginning inventory o# the stoc1s o# the
hard$are store amounted to 33"' ter management
o# the hard$are store $as returned, a secondinventory $as made $ith stoc1s amounting to 0
sho$ing a di##erence o# "' )onsequently,
petitioner demanded #rom respondent spouses
6amos the reconveyance o# the title to the Boni#acio
property to her but the latter un-usti#iably re#used'
Petitioner insisted that respondent spouses 6amos
$ere, in reality, mere trustees o# the Boni#acio
property, thus, they $ere under a moral and legal
obligation to reconvey title over the said property to
her' Petitioner, there#ore, prayed that she be declared
the o$ner o# the Boni#acio property'
R-2P/D-/!2 2ID-"
s second cause o# actioninvolving the Boni#acio property, respondent spouses
6amos contended that they $ere given not only the
management, but also the #ull o$nership o# the
hard$are store by the petitioner, on the condition that
the stoc1s and merchandise o# the store $ill be
inventoried, and out o# the proceeds o# the sales
thereo#, respondent spouses 6amos shall pay
petitioner>s outstanding obligations and liabilities'
ter settling and paying the obligations and liabilities
o# petitioner, respondent spouses 6amos bought the
Boni#acio property #rom Mendoza out o# their o$n
#unds'
7n the second cause o# action, 6T) ruled in #avor o#the petitioner' 2eclaring the petitioner the o$ner o#
Boni#acio propertyH and 7rdering the respondent
spouses 6amos to reconvey to the petitioner the said
Boni#acio property'
*pouses 6amos elevated their case to the )ourt o#
&ppeals, inso#ar as the ruling o# the 6T) on
petitioner>s second cause o# action $as concerned,
)& rendered the assailed decision in #avor o#
respondent spouses 6amos'
I223-2"
s allegations as to the e8istence
o# an e8press trust agreement $ith responden
spouses 6amos, supported only by her o$n and he
son /ohnson>s testimonies, do not hold $ater' &s
correctly ruled by the )ourt o# &ppeals, a resulting
di##erence o# P" in the beginning inventory o# the
stoc1s o# the hard$are store and the second
inventory, by itsel#, is not conclusive proo# that the
said amount $as used to pay the purchase price othe Boni#acio property, ?the di##erence might be due to
bad economic condition or damages o# the
merchandise@, thus it cannot be assumed that she is
no$ the o$ner o# the Boni#acio property'
Petitioner>s arguments #ail to prove the e8istence o
the alleged e8press trust agreement' Thus the petition
is denied and the decision o# the )& is a##irmed
Gonzales v' Perez
F10!2
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
26/46
' The #ormer Municipality o# used to o$n a parcel o#
land located in Barrio )oncepcion subdivided into
three ?@ lots, namely, lots &, B and )'
3' 7n /anuary A, !, the Municipal )ouncil o#
Mari1ina passed 6esolution 5o' !, series o# !
$hich authorized the sale through public bidding o#
Municipal Lots & and )'
' & public bidding $as conducted $herein Pedro
Gonzales $as the highest bidder'
A' *ometime in *eptember !, Pedro sold to MarcosPerez a portion o# Lot ), denominated as Lot )%,
$hich contains an area o# " square meters' The
contract o# sale $as embodied in a 2eed o# *ale
$hich, ho$ever, $as not notarized
' *ubsequently, Pedro and Marcos died'
' In !!3, the Municipality o# Mari1ina, through its then
Mayor 6odol#o :alentino, e8ecuted a 2eed o#
&bsolute Trans#er o# 6eal Property over Lots & and )
in #avor o# the .state o# Pedro )' Gonzales'
"' *ubsequently, herein petitioners e8ecuted an e8tra%
-udicial partition $herein Lot ) $as subdivided into
three lots' &s a result o# the subdivision, ne$ titles
$ere issued $herein the "0%square%meter portion o#Lot )% is no$ denominated as Lot )% and is
covered by T)T 5o' 3AAAA"! and the remaining
square meters o# the sub-ect lot ?Lot )%@ no$ #orms a
portion o# another lot denominated as Lot )%3 and is
no$ covered by T)T 5o' 3AAAAC'
C' 7n 7ctober , !!3, herein respondents sent a
demand letter to one o# herein petitioners as1ing #or
the reconveyance o# the sub-ect property' 4o$ever,
petitioners re#used to reconvey the said lot' &s a
consequence, respondents #iled an action #or
J&nnulment andor 6escission o# 2eed o# &bsolute
Trans#er o# 6eal Property and #or 6econveyance $ith
2amages'
I223-
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
27/46
MDI/1 broug&t a 0om*laint $or Recover' o$Possession %it& Damages against t&e *rivateres*ondents, .rnesto 4ontarciego, Paul Figueroaand Teodoro 4ipalla, be#ore the 6egional Trial )ourt
o# Iloilo )ity'
+pon learning the institution o# the said case,
M-RLI/D1 *resented a 0om*laint@in@intervention,see1ing the declaration o# nullity o# the 2eed o# *ale
bet$een her husband and M72I5& on
o The ground that the titles o# the parcels o#
land in dispute $ere never legally trans#erred
to her husband'
o Fraudulent acts $ere allegedly employed
by him to obtain a Torrens Title in his #avor'
4o$ever, she con#irmed the validity o# the lease
contracts $ith the other private respondents'
M.6LI52& also admitted that the said parcels o# land
$ere those ordered sold by Branch 3 o# the then
)ourt o# First Instance o# Iloilo in *pecial Proceeding
5o' 3A! in DIntestate .state o# 5elson PlanaE
o
-
8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)
28/46
M.6LI52& and there#ore, the principle o# in pari delicto
should have been applied'
These issues are #actual in nature and it is not #or
this )ourt to appreciate and evaluate the pieces o#
evidence introduced belo$' &n appellate court de#ers to
the #actual #indings o# the Trial )ourt, unless petitioner can
sho$ a glaring mista1e in the appreciation o# relevant
evidence'
*ince one o# the characteristics o# a void or
ine8istent contract is that it does not produce any e##ect,
M.6LI52& can recover the property #rom petitioner $honever acquired title thereover'
s decision'
Issue"stestimony $as $ithdra$n #rom the court leaving
only the testimony o# the Tagatag $hich aside #rom
uncorroborated, $as sel#%serving'
;econdly, the alleged other copies o# the document bore
di##erent dates o# entry9 Ma' 4;, 4?;;, 0930 &'M' and June4:, 4?;;, 9 P'M',and di##erent entry numbers9 3A,"AC! and A!' There#ore, the deed $